From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31688 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2002 16:34:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31680 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 16:34:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cerbere.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 16:34:45 -0000 Received: from laocoon (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) by cerbere.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E3E537; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:38:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20020704183019.027bb788@ics.u-strasbg.fr> X-Sender: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 09:37:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz From: Pierre Muller Subject: Re: Resend: [RFA] Fix problem with i386 watchpoints after restarting Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20020704162544.GA26409@nevyn.them.org> References: <4.2.0.58.20020704143015.02832028@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <200206131016.g5DAGcf00647@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4.2.0.58.20020613091046.01957c70@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20020613091046.01957c70@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20020704143015.02832028@ics.u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 At 18:25 04/07/2002 , Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit: >On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 03:12:46PM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote: > > At 15:35 17/06/2002 , Pierre Muller a écrit: > > >At 12:16 13/06/2002 , Mark Kettenis a écrit: > > > >Sorry, I somehow missed your earlier message. This seems to me as an > > > >acceptable way to solve the problem (although I still think there is > > > >something wrong with GDB's mechanism of removing hardware breakpoints. > > > >But: could you add the reason why this is needed to the comment. > > > >Minor nit: Please end your sentences with a '.' and put two spaces > > > >after it. > > >OK, I slightly modifed the patch > > >by adding a comment to i386-nat.c > > >and correcting the comment in the nm-i386.h file. > > > > > >Can I check this in? > > > > After getting approval by a private mail, I have > > checked this in. > >Is this appropriate for the branch also? My instincts say yes. Isn't 5.2.1 aleady frozen? I would also be in favor of putting it into the branch, but I don't know who should decide this.... Pierre Muller Institut Charles Sadron 6,rue Boussingault F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France) mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07 Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99